Frank commentary from an unretired call girl

Three Steps Back

The disposition of all power is to abuses, nor does it at all mend the matter that its possessors are a majority. – James Fenimore Cooper

On December 17th, 2010 New Orleans reclassified prostitution, marijuana possession and two other minor crimes as municipal offenses, thus allowing police to write tickets instead of making arrests; in my column of one year ago today I wrote, “while cops will still have the option to arrest hookers if they please, it’s likely they will be discouraged from doing so because the move was intended to cut costs, reduce crowding in Orleans Parish Prison and unclog courts. This also means escort stings will likely become a thing of the past in New Orleans; can you imagine their setting up an expensive operation just to write a girl a ticket?” Alas, I underestimated the stupidity and pigheadedness of the NOPD and the pure sadism of its chief, Ronal Serpas; while at first it really looked as though the city had ceased its decades-long war on the profession to which it owes its existence (even convicting one cop of kidnapping and attempting to rape a prostitute and firing two others for harassing and falsely arresting streetwalkers), the police later launched a campaign intended specifically to destroy as many people’s lives as possible before the state took away their license to do so.

Regular readers know that prostitutes in Louisiana are routinely charged with the ludicrously-named “Crime Against Nature” felony in addition to simple prostitution, but while it’s generally dropped as part of a plea deal with white middle-class escorts like me it tends to stick for poor (especially black or transsexual) streetwalkers, who are then committed to the “sex offender” registry for decades (40% of Orleans Parish “sex offenders” are there for this non-crime). In my column of February 26th I reported on a federal challenge (Doe vs. Jindal) to this law and mentioned that WWAV had other strategies for defeating it besides the court case. Well, I can now tell you what I was asked to withhold in February: One of those strategies was a legislative one, and it bore fruit Thursday (June 30th) as Governor Bobby Jindal signed a law reducing “solicitation for crime against nature” to a misdemeanor, thus removing the registration requirement. The litigation must continue because everyone previously convicted is still classified as a felon, but considering the new law I think there’s a good chance the case will succeed and those who were victimized by the arbitrary pronouncements of little tin gods in the police and prosecutor’s offices will soon have a chance at a normal life again.

But Louisiana politics being what it is, somebody on the losing side tipped off the NOPD that its window of opportunity for inflicting decades of torment by a single act of piggish sadism was about to close, so Chief Serpas launched two major persecution campaigns within a few weeks with the specific intention of inflicting “crime against nature” charges on as many victims as possible – and thus getting them labeled “sex offenders” – before he was forever barred from ever doing so again on June 30th:

…New Orleans Police Chief Ronal Serpas…said 51 people were arrested on drug and prostitution charges during undercover stings set up during the past three weeks…[then launched a second series of stings only two weeks later which resulted in the arrest of] 29 men who allegedly agreed to pay for sex with undercover…female officers…Superintendent Ronal Serpas said police arrested the men…between June 14 and June 22. The men were booked with the solicitation of prostitutes and crimes against nature…“They (citizens) have children and families and want to use their neighborhoods,” Serpas said…[he] added that prostitution can result in the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases and is often linked to other crimes, such as carjackings or robbery. “Prostitution is a crime of addiction and violence,” Serpas said…

As I pointed out when I first reported this last August, the areas mentioned in the article aren’t “neighborhoods” in any meaningful way:

…they’re industrial areas whose only inhabitants are rats and the residents of cheap motels. And of course no story of police persecution of whores would be complete without the obligatory lies about disease and violent crime. I guess Chief Serpas didn’t get the memo about us all being “trafficking victims” now.

Governments, like all organisms, exist to feed and grow; since they are non-producers, they do so by consuming progressively greater proportions of the wealth of the society on which they are parasitic. If a society is fortunate this parasitism is largely passive, like a benign tumor. But in most modern “democratic” societies bureaucrats feel compelled to justify their existence by ever-increasing control and regulation, especially regulation which results in more wealth for the government or benefits for its political cronies. Sometimes lower levels of government grow “too big for their breeches” and attempt to countermand the laws established by their feudal overlords; Louisiana is particularly known for this, as evidenced not only by its attempt to circumvent Lawrence vs. Texas, but also by its recent moves to outlaw United States legal tender and New Orleans’ criminalization of free speech. It won’t ever end, but perhaps sooner or later either the subjects below or the courts above will curtail these particular abuses, and the politicians will be forced to find new ways to rob, exploit and subjugate the populace.

29 Responses

Hopefully NOPD will get direction from above to cut it out.
Government has a function, two of which are to serve and protect. Any government that can’t feed its people should be overthrown. The ancient empires, the first governments, always stored surplus wheat or rice for times of drought. These governments also worked on infrastructure, in this case, irrigation. Temple whores worked in the service of a major god or goddess, such as Aphrodite; the surplus went to the temples for education and for buying grain.
It was the business of the government to build city buildings such as public baths, ampitheatres, aquaducts, roads, bridges and so on.
Romans had a strong sense of civic involvement. It was a matter of pride for a rich Roman to build an ampitheater.
The barbarians had no such sense of civic pride. European history here took a terrible turn for the worse as for the barbarians, everything was private property, including government. It took Europe over a thousand years to climb out of that morass.
Americans, like ancient Germans, care far too much for private property. This is why our government and society are so much against ideas like free food or medical services for the poor. I’m not against private property by any means. I’m against hoarding it and living for greed.

Dear guinevereschampion, what’s wrong with you? Don’t you know the poor are literal trash? They’re all just using the system! They don’t want to work! They don’t care. The men don’t deserve sex either. Don’t you know that if a man doesn’t have a certain amount of $ he doesn’t even deserve a sex only friendship? And a relationship? No way! Men are only worth what they have in $. The people who use any kind of government help need to be put in a line outside where all can see them in order to get their benefits. That’s the way they should be treated, don’t you know? Like a “sideshow of the poor”! If the US government would just CUT OFF those who are on disability, need Medicare/Medicaid, unemployment, etc., the problem would COMPLETELY SOLVE ITSELF! The disabled would be instantly cured, unemployed people would get a job instantly and those with health problems will be cured instantly also. That’s the solution, don’t you know? All things that come from the government are evil and those who use them are evil also. You need to get with it! You’re against hoarding and living for greed! What’s wrong with you? Don’t you know some of the goals in life are to get as many $ as possible and buy as many possessions as possible? Who cares about the poor? They did it to themselves and they have that evil “entitlement mentality” and the US government is giving them benefits and that’s evil also. You really need to get with the world system! I’m being sarcastic here to make points but do want to say THANK YOU for speaking against the world system that prizes greed and hoarding. Thank you again and keep speaking up for the poor. They need it!

Now that I’ve managed to convince Laura’s computer that my attempts to scroll this page really are attempts to scroll this page, and not attempts to adjust the volume on Winamp (!?) I’d like to say thank you to both Laura and guinevereschampion.

I think that the Romans deserve their fair share of the blame. For one instance, take a look at Diocletian’s reign. It was his binding agricultural labor to the land – because his previous edicts had made agricultural unsustainable and landowners were abandoning their farms – that created the serfdom that lasted a millenium and more. And that doesn’t even address his other reforms that brought inflation and ruination of trade in their train.

Certainly the Germans had a convoluted sense of property. Trying to prove a property claim through the myriad layers of German local, principality and Holy Roman Empire overlays could literally take generations. But I think that is more a function of their governing systems than a defect of private property.

I think it is a bit skewed to describe the feudal system as government by private property. It certainly isn’t congruent with what the modern west means by private property. I think you are confusing government by personal rule with private property.

The great feudal lords held fief and most lands could not be repudiated – they couldn’t be disposed of as they were entailed upon their descendants. Lands transfers took place only by royal decree or through conquest. Depending on the kind of feudalism, they held fief upon concession by royalty. With the exception of some freehold (like the Hanseatic League) and imperial cities, private property as we understand the term was scarce on the ground in medieval Europe.

The Roman Empire had been in decline for a rather long corrupt period before the barbarian invasions administered the coup d’ grace. Bread and Circuses were a means to keep the masses pacified. Other governmental actions of that time period bear some comparison with the practices of overweening governments of the present day.

I would argue that Americans today care far too little about private property. They are willing to let self-described do-gooders dictate to others what can and can’t be done on their property. For instance, the anti-smoking movement is one huge property violation yet most people get on board with that. And when you say that you are against hoarding private property and using it for greed, you are saying that you have a standard that you would like to apply to other people rather than letting them act with their property as they see fit. In other words, you are against private property and can only support the use of property by their “owners” if they conform to your standard of right use. You might be surprised at how many of the theoreticians in the NSDAP would agree with you.

You can be for private property rights PLUS not hoard and revel in greed. I’m with guinevereschampion on this. If there weren’t so much hoarding and greed there wouldn’t be as many people needing help in the US and the rest of the world. It’s a big part of the problem. The fact that kids in the US need what’s called “sponsorship” is a disgrace. That’s 1 example of those in need in the US and, unfortunately, they’re not the only group.

Laura,
I’m curious about where you draw the line regarding “hoarding and greed?” And how you justify where that line is?

I think that you are missing the point of Maggie’s final paragraph. If doctor’s want to give away free medical care I don’t see anyone complaining about that. It’s their time, their expertise and their business. In fact, one orthopedic practice I’m familiar with used to do free spinal surgeries for indigent people 1who couldn’t afford it.

But unless you are talking about voluntary measures – and GC’s point about free medical care doesn’t sound like a voluntary program – then you are coercing others by government force to conform with your expectations of right action. You are claiming a right to force another citizen to expend time, effort and resources on your behalf. You are insisting that they expend part of their life on your definition of right action. Would you like to explain how that is any different from the prohibitionists who target voluntary transactions between consenting adults in sexual interactions and drug purchases?

Say, for instance, that in some rosy future, prostitution is decriminalized. Then the government comes to a practitioner of that art, say, Maggie or her spiritual descendant, and says:

“There are a lot of poor men out there who can’t afford your prices. But they need your services. In return for society allowing you to practice your profession we offer you the following alternatives:

1. You can perform community service by taking on customers, pro bono, equivalent to 10% of your paying clients by gross numbers.

2. We will confiscate 10% of your earnings for the Underprivileged Sexual Remediation Fund and then reimburse you for your mandated social sexual public service.

3. We will allow you to use Sexual Appliances toward your Sexual Remediation Quota but only at a rate exceeding 20% of gross earnings or total gross client numbers as determined by methods outlined in CFR 69 Code SMR subsections (1) and (2) above.

4. Use of subsection (3) above to avoid servicing remediation clientele on the basis of hygiene (oral, genital or general) is hereby disallowed. Such avoidance will be considered discrimination and will be prosecuted under the appropriate US Code or CFR 69.
(a) Limited exemptions for issues of health or medical risk will be entertained on a case by case basis. Appeals must be made to the Secretary of Human Interactive Sexual Services; until such rulings are granted, it is up to the service provider to mitigate the medical issues involved. NO EXEMPTION MAY BE PREEMPTIVELY TAKEN BY THE SERVICE PROVIDER PRIOR TO A RULING BY THE SECRETARY. SUCH ACTIONS WILL BE PROSECUTED UNDER US CODE OR CFR 69

Obviously, this is a made up scenario. But there are similar absurdities in current medical regulations. Oh, and the orthopedic practice that used to provide pro bono services to the poor? They ended up having to sell their practice. Because the DOJ under Bush prosecuted them for anti-trust violations for refusing to go along with the State Workers’ Compensation rulings and then Obamacare provisions regarding hospital affiliated private practices undercut the value of their business so they either had to sell now or lose it later. If you notice private practices disappearing by consolidating into mega-practices or being absorbed into hospital chains this is the reason why.

And, of course, some clueless lefty, in 20 years, is going to decry the lack of small general practices and the consolidation of mega-practices as a market failure. Don’t believe me? Well, a similar thing has already happened. In the mid 1970’s Teddy Kennedy supported the creation of the dreaded Health Maintenance Organizations – HMO’s. Less than 20 years later, in 1993, the same Teddy Kennedy was decrying these evil organizations as heartless, profligate and cruel and not one person pointed out that he had helped create them.

1One case in particular involved a fellow who was completely screwed by his ex-wife – his kids preferred living with him because she was such an intemperate personalty and to forestall this she made claims of non-payment of child support even though he had paid her in cash (at her request) for years – and he had his professional license stripped and can now only work menial jobs. He was injured on the job – the state work comp referred surgeon botched the spinal surgery and his disability settlement was taken by the child support people. This orthopedic practice had to find a lawyer who fortunately took the case pro bono because the state work comp program wasn’t going to allow them to do the free surgery as they weren’t a provider certified by the same work comp system. If they proceeded, the work comp people said they would require repayment of all “benefits” (including the price of the botched surgery and the confiscated disability settlement) given to their patient under threat of charging him with workers’ compensation fraud.

Until the US government has a “sex stamp” program (but, that couldn’t be! ALL politicians are ###*** and hate us ALL and don’t ever do anything good for anyone and all others who work in US government are the same…eyeroll) there’s the women like me who help the poor sexually plus the men who don’t want to use whores. Because I’m now fully “out” in this area plus 1 other 1 that’s related I’ll be speaking up in our defense more this coming year. The “sex stamp” thing reminds me of the Medicare HMO I worked for that would pay for some Viagra pills for the men customers every month. That was wonderful! But, an insurance company doing good for their customers? That can’t be! They were a corporation and all of them are ###*** also and never do any truly good thing for their customers! I know you’ll get my sarcasm here…lol.

It would be a plastic card with a magnetic strip. Some single dad who likes to get laid but really needs money to buy school supplies for his kids will offer to let his middle-class brother use the card to hire a $300 an hour girl, in exchange for which the middle-class brother will give his brother the daddy $250 which daddikins can now use to buy school supplies.

Middle-class brother gets a $300 girl for $250, daddy brother doesn’t get laid but he does buy his kids some decent school supplies, and the girl? She gets $300, the same as if the program didn’t exist. Except she gets it more often, since more guys can now pay it.

I understand that y’all are mostly just being silly, but I must point out that most sensible (non-desperate) escorts would never accept “sex stamps” or else would raise their rates above whatever the program would pay. The reason? One of our primary defenses against disease and mistreatment is a high price. One of the reasons streetwalkers have so much harder lives than call girls is that anyone can afford them, and the fact (politically incorrect though it may be) is that in general, the less a man pays the harder he is to deal with and the rougher and more dangerous he is.

That’s too bad. It would be nice to have more people on your side in this, and telling the (substantial number, if not the majority) of men who can’t afford your services that if we could, you’d raise your price until we couldn’t isn’t the way to get it.

I’ll continue to support decriminalization for a number of reasons, but I now feel as if I have even less personal stake in the issue than I did before.

It would be nice to have more people on your side in this, and telling the (substantial number, if not the majority) of men who can’t afford your services that if we could, you’d raise your price until we couldn’t isn’t the way to get it.

Perhaps not, but neither is lying. The fact of the matter is, every working girl with any experience will tell you the same thing: Men who have nothing to lose usually treat girls like crap, expect everything for nothing and tend to worry less about disease. Men with money have more to lose, and tend to treat working girls better. There are obviously exceptions in both groups, but not enough to justify taking that kind of risk.

I think this may just be one of those issues in which it’s very difficult for a man to see things as a woman sees them; perhaps the equivalent would be misguided sex worker rights advocates insisting that beautiful women are “privileged” and therefore sex work should be controlled by the government with clients forced to pay sight unseen and then being assigned whatever sex worker was next in line regardless of age, weight, looks, skill or gender (in the name of “fairness”, of course). If you couldn’t stomach that or see it as fair, how could you imagine the “sex stamp” idea as “fair”? I’m sure brothels would accept such a deal, but independents want more control over their own bodies.

I should think what would make it fair is that if the girl doesn’t like the would-be client, she doesn’t take his stamps OR his Benjamins. And if she does like him, she takes either.

Your objection seems to include the unstated assumption that a girl is legally required to take any man with a handful of stamps. I guess there are legislatures dumb enough to pass such a thing, but it wasn’t in anything I suggested. She doesn’t have to take any guy with a fist full of hundred dollar bills, after all.

I included sections 3 and 4 as only half-tongue in cheek because you are right; that is ultimately where the gubmint busybodies end up.

In my work I have to deal with a regulatory body which is exempt from any meaningful public oversight. The instances of straining at gnats and swallowing camels seem to multiply exponentially when you have a fundamentally unaccountable gov’t bureaucracy.

Dear c andrew, when a person states their stand on something it doesn’t automatically mean they want their stand made into law. Personally, if a business is making a profit and doesn’t do ANY free work and/or doesn’t give ANY to charity then I won’t give them my business. I would IF they’re starting out and haven’t had time to make a profit yet. But, other than that, NO. When I talk about hoarding and greed I’m talking about wanting more than you need and not caring about others truly in need. There’s many, unfortunately, in the world in need and to deny that hoarding/greed doesn’t contribute to that problem hugely is willful denial. As far as free healthcare goes, there’s what’s called “county healthcare” and these systems are booming in the US. These are the systems funded at least in part by counties where the patients pay what they can and/or get free care depending on their incomes. I’ve used 1 of these systems years ago plus have a brother that worked for 1 for years so have 1st hand experience with them. These systems prove that not all free and/or very cheap systems go under. Actually, they’re a lifesaver for those who don’t qualify for Medicaid. I do share your frustration over some of the government regulations with healthcare. I’ve worked in the medical/health insurance field a lot of years and have seen these like you have. But, also know that without any regulation the insurance companies will pay NOTHING. There has to be some regulation. I also know from working in the healthcare field that some of these regulations are GOOD and truly HELP the patients (I’m 1 of the patients that’s benefitted). Again, when people state their personal convictions that doesn’t automatically mean they’re wanting to “run things” for everyone. Thanks for listening.

Most cops are cops because they are bullies. That’s what they get out of the job. Taking away the power to bully really ruins it for them. Makes it no longer worth the bad hours and boredom without the little sadistic thrills. You may think they’re there to protect and serve, but that’s certainly not how they see it.

As for the Romans, by the time the barbarian tribes invaded Rome, the lives of most Romans (the poor and working class, who always make up the forgotten majority) had gotten so tough, and so bad thanks to a corrupt and entitled leadership class that they weren’t at all sorry to see Rome fall. Does that sound familiar?

Most societies depend on a hierarchical structure, which means a few on top and lots on the bottom. Modern Capitalism works like that. You’re never going to have a fair and just society for the many with a structure like that. The society has to be designed so that power can’t pool. Power has to be distributed, and limited. Otherwise you end up with the NOPD, and other bands of goons.

The bullies in the government system are not confined to the police. This is why I’m skeptical of claims that putting another government program in place will fix the problem. There seems to be a self-selection process going on that puts bullies into government service, largely because there is no effective means of holding them accountable for their bad behavior. In fact von Hayek pointed out this tendency in a chapter of his book, The Road to Serfdom titled, “Why the Worst Get on Top.” Succinctly put, his point is that everyone has moral limits. With no countervailing impetus – as is the case with government actors – people will go to the limit of their moral framework. But when they step aside because of their squeamishness, the person who replaces them does so because that particular line doesn’t define their limits. When they reach their limit, they will be subsequently replaced so the depravity of government actors generally increases. This is the underlying cause for a multitude of government dysfunction; as Radley Balko’s site, The Agitator illustrates on a daily basis.

What passes for capitalism in the US today would more properly be called fascism, at least in its upper echelons. If you are a political insider you get to benefit from these “public private partnerships,” eg., Goldman-Sachs, Solyndra, GE, GM, etc. If you are a political outsider you get the Gibson Guitar treatment. So there is an immense incentive to become a political insider by whatever means necessary, be that ideological conformity, political loyalty or large sums of cash.

There are apparently economic studies out there that show an inverse relationship between political contributions and regulatory action; If you don’t pay the politicos protection money, you will be targeted.

One example of this is Bill Gates. Prior to the Clinton Justice Department going after him, Gates had one lobbyist in DC – at the Electronic Freedom Foundation. Afterwards, well…

But the corporations are not the prime movers here. Think about it. In a conflict between a man with a bag of money and a man with a gun, who wins? This is why the Occupy Wall Street people – whose larger complaints I agree with – are completely wrong in their solutions. All they will do is give bad guys on both sides of the fascist divide a larger hammer to smack us with.

I agree with you that a free society requires that concentrations of power be delimited and controlled. But you probably disagree with me on this: I think that there is a difference in kind between political power and economic power. I can choose not to do business with an economic entity; I don’t have that option with a political entity that coerces my involvement at the point of a gun.

For instance – and this started under the Bush Administration but has accelerated under Obama – the FDA has recently started “re-certifying” medications that have been on the market for decades. In return for conducting “clinical trials” the FDA grants monopoly status to these drug companies.

But since these medications have been on the market in clinical use for 50 and 60 years, there is no reasonable expectation that their “clinical trials” will produce anything useful. But this little charade is designed to cover up what is blatantly rent-seeking and nothing else.

So, a drug regimen used since the 1950’s to keep women with a tendency toward miscarriage from premature labor that once cost $3000.00 per pregnancy has, subsequent to the FDA’s action, skyrocketed to $35,000.00 per pregnancy.

I suffer from an auto-immune disorder that, left unchecked, will kill me in three different but very unpleasant ways. Fortunately, the sulfa compounds that keep it in check were dirt cheap and have been around since the mid 50’s.

But the FDA “re-certified” one form of it under the Bush Administration at it increased 10 fold in price. The FDA under the Obama Administration just
“re-certified” another form of it and it has, for now, only tripled in price. And now the FDA is shutting down other manufacturers who violate this monopoly arrangement and they are targeting the compounding pharmacies who get this stuff from abroad where it is still dirt cheap and compound affordable medicines.

None of this would be possible to these corporations if they didn’t have a government agency as their hired gun. There is a difference between economic power gained by free interactions between people and the political power to coerce that ultimately rests on the power of a gun. Government is force – nothing but – and it is a bad idea to let it expand beyond the necessary let alone endorse a fusion of political power with economic power. Regulation of commerce does this. Regulatory capture is a real phenomenon.

I believe that we should separate state power from commercial power in the same way we have separated state and religion. If members of a religious group, or the religious group itself abuse the rights of other citizens, they are still accountable to the criminal and civil courts. We don’t start regulatory agencies like the Federal Religious Coercion Bureau; we try them in the courts. And yet religiously sponsored rights violations are not overrunning the private sector – the abuses of citizens’ rights from the religious sector are coming from their attempts to co-opt government powers to enforce their ideas of “right action” upon others through drug and sex laws that violate individual rights.

We should do the same with commerce. If a members of a commercial group or the commercial group itself violates an individual’s rights, let them face a court and jury of their peers. Not a regulatory agency that will be co-opted to their benefit and our detriment.

Whorish Media

Maggie on Twitter

Boring but necessary legal stuff

All original content on this website (i.e. all of my columns, pages and anything else which I write myself) is protected under international copyright law as of the time it is posted; though you may link to it as you please or quote passages (as long as you attribute the quote to me), please do not reproduce whole columns without my express written permission. In other words, you have to say "pretty please with sugar on top" first, and then wait for me to say "okey-dokey".